Dissecting Flock Safety: The Cameras Tracking You Are a Security Nightmare [video]

(www.youtube.com)

Show context

echelon ◴[16 Nov 25 16:48 UTC] No.45946439[source]▶

These cameras are showing up everywhere in my state. It's creepy. I had no idea what they were, and now suddenly they're at every intersection, gas station, you name it.

I don't like that the government is tracking everyone's movements so openly. I knew they were doing this with cell phone data, but that wasn't so brazen.

replies(3): >>45946460 #>>45946482 #>>45948574 #

diogenes_atx ◴[16 Nov 25 16:53 UTC] No.45946482[source]▶

>>45946439 #

Here in Austin, the city council no longer allows Flock ALPR's (automated license plate readers) on city streets, but Home Depot and other businesses still use them in their parking lots, and they scan your vehicle license plate every time you enter and exit the premises. Flock sells its data to ICE and law enforcement.

replies(2): >>45946595 #>>45947116 #

garrettlangley[dead post] ◴[16 Nov 25 18:13 UTC] No.45947116[source]▶

>>45946482 #

[flagged]

1. CharlesW ◴[16 Nov 25 18:26 UTC] No.45947216[source]▶

>>45947116 #

Correct. Flock sells cameras and platform access, but gives data from their shared, nationwide surveillance utility to ICE and law enforcement.

https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachus...

https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-...

https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-com...

replies(2): >>45948730 #>>45949164 #

2. tptacek ◴[16 Nov 25 21:50 UTC] No.45948730[source]▶

>>45947216 (TP) #

I don't like that this is the case, but you understand that a pretty huge fraction of the country doesn't share your set of political premises that providing data for immigration enforcement is unethical, right? (I do, but that shouldn't matter for the analysis.)

It seems weird to me to hyperfocus on Flock's role here rather than the role your own local municipalities play in deciding how to configure these things. Not sharing with ICE is apparently quite doable? At least to the point of requiring a court order to get access to the data, which is a vulnerability all online cameras share.

Later

s/company/country, thanks for the correction!

replies(1): >>45948800 #

3. akerl_ ◴[16 Nov 25 21:58 UTC] No.45948800[source]▶

>>45948730 #

Did you mean country?

4. potato3732842 ◴[16 Nov 25 22:46 UTC] No.45949164[source]▶

>>45947216 (TP) #

>but gives data from their shared, nationwide surveillance utility to ICE and law enforcement

I don't think anyone with a network like that can not "give" the contents to the feds for very long without drawing ire.

replies(1): >>45950081 #

5. queenkjuul ◴[17 Nov 25 01:24 UTC] No.45950081[source]▶

>>45949164 #

Ah yeah the poor businessmen, god forbid they draw ire. Much better to just act unethically.

replies(1): >>45952535 #

6. ◴[17 Nov 25 11:02 UTC] No.45952535{3}[source]▶

>>45950081 #

↑